Our Free Speech Under Attack.

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . what is being protected here? The hearts and souls of mindless individuals? . . .

As I understand it, Republican Gerald Allen is concerned that vile, nasty gays, due to their unnatural practise, can coerce a perfectly normal mindless bigot into beating the snot out of said passing fagots, and then not be protected from suffering the full legal consequences under the law.

His law would protect said homicidal nut-jobs from being inspired to commit their felonious assaults by removing all information about alternate lifestyles from the public’s sight.

Naturally, without detailed information about these nasty, gay wrongdoers, the poor potential thugs in question will never resort to fisticuffs and flagellation to demonstrate their lack of approval for anything other than persons of a dissimilar lifestyle.



In defence of gay(?) Literature, I would like Allen to answer just one simple question.

What proof does he have that the thugs he is trying to protect patronize a library — ANY library!

Indeed, what make him think that they can read?

 

[LadyJeanne]

High school graduation rate in Alabama: 62%
Rank: #43 out of 50 states

 

[CharleyH]

when I see these tightly wound conservative types, I always think there must be a trail of dead hookers on their way to the top.

ROFL, in this case with loose flower gowns and tightly woven, nude, nylon stockings. LOL I SAY no more

 

[CharleyH]

As I understand it, Republican Gerald Allen is concerned that vile, nasty gays, due to their unnatural practise, can coerce a perfectly normal mindless bigot into beating the snot out of said passing fagots, and then not be protected from suffering the full legal consequences under the law.

His law would protect said homicidal nut-jobs from being inspired to commit their felonious assaults by removing all information about alternate lifestyles from the public’s sight.

Naturally, without detailed information about these nasty, gay wrongdoers, the poor potential thugs in question will never resort to fisticuffs and flagellation to demonstrate their lack of approval for anything other than persons of a dissimilar lifestyle.



In defence of gay(?) Literature, I would like Allen to answer just one simple question.

What proof does he have that the thugs he is trying to protect patronize a library — ANY library!

Indeed, what make him think that they can read?

Standing ovation, and if I had more a bow than a dancing banana, I would give it

 

[CharleyH]

Standing ovation, and if I had more a bow than a dancing banana, I would give it

EDIT TO ADD (not an edit, sorry) Even now (dancing bananas), it might be TOO much

 

[OhMissScarlett]

EDIT TO ADD (not an edit, sorry) Even THEN, it might be TOO much

we need an emoticon for clapping, just for Burly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hate to say it, but it will probably pass. More, it will probably stand up to judicial review on the state level.

 

[BooMerengue]

we need an emoticon for clapping, just for Burly.

Will this work??

http://www.hellasmultimedia.com/webimages/anim-htm/images/Handsclapping.gif

Feel free to lift this and use it however you like!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

His reasoning is... strange.

I see his point (being kind to divorce myself rom calling it anything other than what it literally is), that the promotion of things glorify or justify situations that run counter to the law aren't things the State ought have a responsibility to pay for. I think, all emotive and tangential propositions about what he's "inferring" aside, that's a decent point. It's surely well within the bounds of reason to say the State doesn't have to provide things that promote lawlessness (even if we disagree with the laws or the lawlessness seems harmless and highly circumstantial).

However, that would mean, by the same token, banning things like books that talk about criminals at all (Poe is out, Faulkner is out, etc.); things that talk about or attempt to explain treachery (Benedict Arnold is out of history, then; and in some interpretations we couldn't talk about the founding fathers at all); we'd have to get rid of books in which fraud takes place (Encyclopedia Brown or Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew), books where people kill other people (there goes horror novels)...

...no, he's got a point, and the point is reasonable, but I have to disagree with where that would take us--using the same reasoning.

 

[Edward Teach]

Hate to say it, but it will probably pass. More, it will probably stand up to judicial review on the state level.

I agree that it will probably pass, just because of the politics involved. Seems like it's now anti-GOP therefore anti-American to vote for anything considered pro homosexuality.

To me the more frightening thing is that legislators now know that this type of radical stance will likely get them re-elected instead of defeated and that what we are seeing is just the beginning of what is to come.

Ed

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Hmmm...

Serves them thar faggots right fer what they're doing to awwwr cunt-ry....

*spit*

Lesss git them niggers next...

Yeah...

The thing about people like this is that, even though people voted against gay marriage, we're still not moving backwards. It was an issue we weren't ready for, not one we will never be ready for, and there was money involved is said issue.

There's no money being inpeded upon by selling, buying and reading these books, but the opposite. The people who didn't play the "religious moral" angle (for lack of better wording; apologies if anyone is offended by this) will see the difference.

The fact of the matter is this: Helter Skelter was in my high school library. Mien Kampf (sp?) is out there on the shelves of several book stores. We could send picture books of carson shagging Glam to libraries and bookstores and not see nearly the negative effect that these two books can cause.

It won't go anywhere. The simple fact that some people are even willing to try such things shows how close we are to crossing the line between unacceptibility and acceptibility in terms of "alternate sexualities" (I don't really like that term, but once I've used "religious moral" I can live with it). These people are scared of the inevitable. They're fighting it so hard, they're actually hurting themselves in thier attempts to protect.

It'll be a long haul for genuine equality, but I think we'll be nearing the peak and headed downhill soon enough.

Q_C

 

[CharleyH]

Hate to say it, but it will probably pass. More, it will probably stand up to judicial review on the state level.

Sad sac! Why, would it ?(I know, just putting it out there) GOOD, LORD!!! Explain, though .

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sad sac! Why, would it ?(I know, just putting it out there) GOOD, LORD!!! Explain, though .

Politicians will support things that are popular. They will support universally popular things with zeal. the number of people in Alabama who are pro homosexuality is fairly insignificant. The number who are actively anti-homosexual is extensive. Those neither violently pro or con, are almost all simply less anti than the extremists. So there is no incentive to oppose it among the legislators. You can only pick up votes by supportin git and if you oppose it, you will pay for it with attack ads next time around calling you pro gay.

The Alabama courts are notoriously arch conservative. With men like Moore elected to judgeships by "god-fearing, bible toting, etc. etc." electorates. the odds of an appeal hitting a liberal or even moderate judge are close to nil. So it will stand. You must also remember that even obscenity is defined by the community standards ruling of the USSC. To the community standards of most places in Alabama, literature depicting two men having sex is considered obscene, no matter how artistically rendered.

 

[cantdog]

The ass promoted a creationism-only bill, tto. There's a link at the bottom of the page Miss Scarlett linked us to.

It's just what you'd expect.

 

[CharleyH]

His reasoning is... strange.

I see his point (being kind to divorce myself rom calling it anything other than what it literally is), that the promotion of things glorify or justify situations that run counter to the law aren't things the State ought have a responsibility to pay for.

Yet, he is, himself promoting the glorification of a Gangbang BASH, and that is counter to law.

EDIT TO ADD: And oh how his words do promo all he stands for.

 

[SeaCat]

Politicians will support things that are popular. They will support universally popular things with zeal. the number of people in Alabama who are pro homosexuality is fairly insignificant. The number who are actively anti-homosexual is extensive. Those neither violently pro or con, are almost all simply less anti than the extremists. So there is no incentive to oppose it among the legislators. You can only pick up votes by supportin git and if you oppose it, you will pay for it with attack ads next time around calling you pro gay.

The Alabama courts are notoriously arch conservative. With men like Moore elected to judgeships by "god-fearing, bible toting, etc. etc." electorates. the odds of an appeal hitting a liberal or even moderate judge are close to nil. So it will stand. You must also remember that even obscenity is defined by the community standards ruling of the USSC. To the community standards of most places in Alabama, literature depicting two men having sex is considered obscene, no matter how artistically rendered.

Colleen,

I must agree with what you have said here, but I have to add that they also vote out of fear as well. No Lawmaker will vote against something like this knowing the smear campaign against them which will surely follow. (Senator CT voted against this bill. Their voting against this bill shows they support a gay or Lesbian Lifestyle. Therefore it shows that they not only support this lifestyle but they must also be involved in it. Is this the kind of person you want to have running our great state?)

This is the same reason many of the foolish laws still on the books remain there.

Cat

 

[elsol]

Whenever someone says

"I don't look at it as censorship,"

or

"I don't think of it as censorship,"

The translation is "I know it's censorship, and you know it's censorship... why the fuck are you asking me that question?"

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[TheEarl]

Whenever someone says

"I don't look at it as censorship,"

or

"I don't think of it as censorship,"

The translation is "I know it's censorship, and you know it's censorship... why the fuck are you asking me that question?"

Sincerely,
ElSol

It's never the right question to ask. The right question is "Do you feel that gay people are non-human and therefore do none of their constitutional rights apply? If so, then when shall we allow medical testing and slavery for these animals?"

The Earl

 

[minsue]

Hate to say it, but it will probably pass. More, it will probably stand up to judicial review on the state level.

And once it does, it will spread state to state just like the marraige "protection" laws.

 

[elsol]

I hear rumors there is a grass-roots movement in Alabama to burn all books saying that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

Okay... seriously... let's get the fuck out of Iraq and start bringing some freedom and democracy to our shores.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[sweetnpetite]

If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.

When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.

Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."

The bill also would ban materials that recognize or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Alabama. Allen said that meant books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too.

His bill also would prohibit a teacher from handing out materials or bringing in a classroom speaker who suggested homosexuality was OK, he said.

I think we should ban any book with any depiction of *any* illegal activies. If it's illegal to do it, it should be illegal to talk about it, or write books about it. Of course, we'll have to stop training people in criminal justice, because they would have no textbooks, and history will be out but we can replace that with religion.

Seriously, I can understand certain content //extreme// being screened out- by a librarian, not by lawmakers- in a school setting. That is the job for the librarian and not the lawmakers. But to ban any books *written* by homosexuals or with any homosexual content whatsoever is simply to turn the whole thing into a witch hunt. And to purposly only allow the voice of *one* oppinion to be heard is obvios sensorship. If that's not, what the hell is?

 

[elsol]

I think we should ban any book with any depiction of *any* illegal activies. If it's illegal to do it, it should be illegal to talk about it, or write books about it. Of course, we'll have to stop training people in criminal justice, because they would have no textbooks, and history will be out but we can replace that with religion.

Seriously, I can understand certain content //extreme// being screened out- by a librarian, not by lawmakers- in a school setting. That is the job for the librarian and not the lawmakers. But to ban any books *written* by homosexuals or with any homosexual content whatsoever is simply to turn the whole thing into a witch hunt. And to purposly only allow the voice of *one* oppinion to be heard is obvios sensorship. If that's not, what the hell is?

The Bible is most DEFINITELY out!

Oh wait... that's a classic right? Crappy writing but hey at least it's old.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[TheEarl]

And to purposly only allow the voice of *one* oppinion to be heard is obvios sensorship. If that's not, what the hell is?

Anything which attempts to oppose the word of our one true God of course.

The Earl

 

[elsol]

Anything which attempts to oppose the word of our one true God of course.

The Earl

Actually... I would say that the real cause is that if there is only one vision of the world allowed than the same people get to stay in power.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

It is ten years later, and more than ever, Aaron Sorkin appears to still be dead on the money.


“. . . whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.”

“The American President” — Aaron Sorkin.

​